Often described as the fundamental principle or “First Amendment” of the internet, Network Neutrality is the idea that access to all internet content and services should be treated neutrally by Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, and thus remain open, unrestricted and unimpeded (Save The Internet 2009; Nowak April 2008). Also called Net Neutrality, it is the opposite of packet prioritization, wherein digital packets of content are screened, analyzed, and prioritized by ISPs (Goldsborough 2008). Net Neutrality posits that these ISPs not be allowed to discriminate against content based on source or ownership, and that practices such as traffic shaping, throttling, and the filtering of content go against the rights of paying customers (Nowak April 2008; Goldsborough 2008; Save The Internet 2009).
In this video, advocacy group 'Save The Internet' provides a straightforward explanation of Network Neutrality from the perspective of an American consumer (Save The Internet 2008).
Internet Service Providers and Net Neutrality
Recent actions by major Canadian ISPs have set Canadians on edge, and put in motion the debate on Net Neutrality in Canada. “First came the revelation that Bell Canada was throttling the speeds of its third-party internet resellers. Then came news that Rogers Communications was limiting how much its customers could download. Then users complained that their downloads of a CBC-TV show over BitTorrent were slowed because of throttling. To put the icing on the cake, a national union officially asked the telecommunications regulator to protect internet users from traffic interference by service providers. The net neutrality debate has exploded in Canada” (Nowak April 2008).
A 2007 release by the Canadian Press revealed the views of Canadian Internet Service Providers, saying that they "are increasingly determined to play a greater role in how Internet content is delivered. As the carriers of the content, they believe they should be gatekeepers of the content, with the freedom to impose fees for their role" (Geist 2007).
ISPs claim that “in an age of growing bandwidth use...network neutrality is neither feasible nor desirable” (Save Our Net 2009). The result of this is the instigation of practices such as traffic shaping, throttling, and the restriction of access to certain content; Bell Canada, Rogers and Telus, three of the major Canadian ISPs, have each admitted to engaging in some, if not all, of these practices (Nowak April 2008; CBC 2005).
Throttling
Throttling, also known by the slightly less aggressive term of ‘traffic shaping’ is the slowing of service to certain applications or users during certain times of the day (Nowak April 2008). ISPs are targeting peer-to-peer services such as BitTorrent and Skype, claiming that much of the content being shared is pirated films or music (Goldsborough 2008; Nowak May 2008). They also claim that these services are used by a minority of their customers, and yet are taking up the majority of available bandwidth, slowing access for everyone else (Goldsborough 2008; Nowak May 2008). Bell has been making efforts to increase the transparency of its traffic shaping efforts, arguing that they are ‘necessary to prevent disruption for 700 000 customers” (Nowak June 2008). Net Neutrality advocates rebut that ISPs have failed to back up these claims, citing American provider Comcast as an example of neutral traffic management (Nowak May 2008).
Content Blocking
In 2005, Telus drew attention to the issue of Network Neutrality when it blocked subscribers from the “Voices for Change”, a website which supported Telus union workers on strike (CBC 2005). Telus defended the move in light of the website’s content, while Net Neutrality advocates argued that the move set a dangerous precedent for ISP gatekeeping (CBC 2005).
Net Neutrality and The Consumer
In violating the principles of net neutrality, consumer advocacy groups argue that ISPs are committing several major faux-pas (Save The Internet 2009). Each of these disrupt users' current experience of the internet, and have to potential to lead to what Shane Greenstein calls a “nightmare scenario” (2006).
Content Discrimination and a Tiered Internet
The backbone of the net neutrality argument is that networks should simply provide the connection, and not discriminate between what types of content consumers can access via these connections - or the speed at which they can access them (Save The Internet 2009). In a pay-per-view system, internet service providers not only charge customers to gain access to the internet, but they may charge them again to utilize certain online services or view certain websites (Save The Internet 2009). Save The Internet lists an alternative method as well, saying that while ISPs “...may not charge you directly via pay-per-view Web sites....they will charge all the service providers you use, who will pass those costs along to you in the form of price hikes or new charges to view content” (2009). The latter is referred to as tiered service, wherein content owners choose whether or not to opt for service in the ‘fast lane’; this will determine how fast their data will be transmitted to users (Nowak April 2008). In creating slow and fast lanes, and in blocking certain websites altogether, ISPs are actively discriminating against certain users and their content of choice.
Decline In Innovation
The long-term fear of packet prioritization opponents is that, as a result of being charged for their cutting-edge content, innovators and entrepreneurs will be unable to easily grow their businesses online (Save The Internet 2009). The vast, easily accessible market that made Google and Facebook so successful will be out of reach to those who refuse to “pony up enough ‘protection money’” to the ISPs (Greenstein 2006; Save The Internet 2009). These additional charges and potential discrimination against their content will discourage many, and utterly crush the dreams of others.
Current Action
A Net Neutrality Supporter on Parliament Hill
Canada is one of many countries watching the debate unfold in the United States, and with President Obama declaring his support of Net Neutrality, legislation south of the border will likely have an impact on developments here (Nowak April 2008; Save Our Net 2009). On May 28th 2008, the NDP introduced bill C-552, looking to amend the Telecommuncations Act to protect Net Neutrality; this bill was supported by a massive rally on Parliament Hill (Nowak May 2008). Several advocacy sites have sprung up amidst the net neutrality debate, many of them specific to Canada. Each of these seek raise awareness of the issue, and spur concerned citizens to action (Neutrality.ca 2009; Save Our Net 2009; Save The Internet 2009)
Archive Content:
Join the discussion on UTM and Sheridan Transit at our Impact Group Page! All suggestions welcome!
Table of Contents
What is Net Neutrality?
Often described as the fundamental principle or “First Amendment” of the internet, Network Neutrality is the idea that access to all internet content and services should be treated neutrally by Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, and thus remain open, unrestricted and unimpeded (Save The Internet 2009; Nowak April 2008). Also called Net Neutrality, it is the opposite of packet prioritization, wherein digital packets of content are screened, analyzed, and prioritized by ISPs (Goldsborough 2008). Net Neutrality posits that these ISPs not be allowed to discriminate against content based on source or ownership, and that practices such as traffic shaping, throttling, and the filtering of content go against the rights of paying customers (Nowak April 2008; Goldsborough 2008; Save The Internet 2009).In this video, advocacy group 'Save The Internet' provides a straightforward explanation of Network Neutrality from the perspective of an American consumer (Save The Internet 2008).
Internet Service Providers and Net Neutrality
Recent actions by major Canadian ISPs have set Canadians on edge, and put in motion the debate on Net Neutrality in Canada. “First came the revelation that Bell Canada was throttling the speeds of its third-party internet resellers. Then came news that Rogers Communications was limiting how much its customers could download. Then users complained that their downloads of a CBC-TV show over BitTorrent were slowed because of throttling. To put the icing on the cake, a national union officially asked the telecommunications regulator to protect internet users from traffic interference by service providers. The net neutrality debate has exploded in Canada” (Nowak April 2008).A 2007 release by the Canadian Press revealed the views of Canadian Internet Service Providers, saying that they "are increasingly determined to play a greater role in how Internet content is delivered. As the carriers of the content, they believe they should be gatekeepers of the content, with the freedom to impose fees for their role" (Geist 2007).
ISPs claim that “in an age of growing bandwidth use...network neutrality is neither feasible nor desirable” (Save Our Net 2009). The result of this is the instigation of practices such as traffic shaping, throttling, and the restriction of access to certain content; Bell Canada, Rogers and Telus, three of the major Canadian ISPs, have each admitted to engaging in some, if not all, of these practices (Nowak April 2008; CBC 2005).
Throttling
Throttling, also known by the slightly less aggressive term of ‘traffic shaping’ is the slowing of service to certain applications or users during certain times of the day (Nowak April 2008). ISPs are targeting peer-to-peer services such as BitTorrent and Skype, claiming that much of the content being shared is pirated films or music (Goldsborough 2008; Nowak May 2008). They also claim that these services are used by a minority of their customers, and yet are taking up the majority of available bandwidth, slowing access for everyone else (Goldsborough 2008; Nowak May 2008). Bell has been making efforts to increase the transparency of its traffic shaping efforts, arguing that they are ‘necessary to prevent disruption for 700 000 customers” (Nowak June 2008). Net Neutrality advocates rebut that ISPs have failed to back up these claims, citing American provider Comcast as an example of neutral traffic management (Nowak May 2008).Content Blocking
In 2005, Telus drew attention to the issue of Network Neutrality when it blocked subscribers from the “Voices for Change”, a website which supported Telus union workers on strike (CBC 2005). Telus defended the move in light of the website’s content, while Net Neutrality advocates argued that the move set a dangerous precedent for ISP gatekeeping (CBC 2005).Net Neutrality and The Consumer
In violating the principles of net neutrality, consumer advocacy groups argue that ISPs are committing several major faux-pas (Save The Internet 2009). Each of these disrupt users' current experience of the internet, and have to potential to lead to what Shane Greenstein calls a “nightmare scenario” (2006).Content Discrimination and a Tiered Internet
The backbone of the net neutrality argument is that networks should simply provide the connection, and not discriminate between what types of content consumers can access via these connections - or the speed at which they can access them (Save The Internet 2009). In a pay-per-view system, internet service providers not only charge customers to gain access to the internet, but they may charge them again to utilize certain online services or view certain websites (Save The Internet 2009). Save The Internet lists an alternative method as well, saying that while ISPs “...may not charge you directly via pay-per-view Web sites....they will charge all the service providers you use, who will pass those costs along to you in the form of price hikes or new charges to view content” (2009). The latter is referred to as tiered service, wherein content owners choose whether or not to opt for service in the ‘fast lane’; this will determine how fast their data will be transmitted to users (Nowak April 2008). In creating slow and fast lanes, and in blocking certain websites altogether, ISPs are actively discriminating against certain users and their content of choice.Decline In Innovation
The long-term fear of packet prioritization opponents is that, as a result of being charged for their cutting-edge content, innovators and entrepreneurs will be unable to easily grow their businesses online (Save The Internet 2009). The vast, easily accessible market that made Google and Facebook so successful will be out of reach to those who refuse to “pony up enough ‘protection money’” to the ISPs (Greenstein 2006; Save The Internet 2009). These additional charges and potential discrimination against their content will discourage many, and utterly crush the dreams of others.Current Action
Several advocacy sites have sprung up amidst the net neutrality debate, many of them specific to Canada. Each of these seek raise awareness of the issue, and spur concerned citizens to action (Neutrality.ca 2009; Save Our Net 2009; Save The Internet 2009)
Works Cited
CBC. “Telus cutes subscriber access to pro-union website”. 24 July 2005. February 2009.<__http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/24/telus-sites050724.html__>
Geist, Michael. “What the Canadian Government Really Thinks About Net Neutrality”. MichaelGeist.ca. 6 February 2007. 4 February 2009.
<__http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1664/125/__>
Goldsborough, Reid. “Video and the Future of the Internet.”
Tech Directions. Oct 2008. Vol. 68 Issue 3. p.12
<http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1502965461&SrchMode=1&sid=1&
Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1233183786&clientId=12520>
Greenstein, Shane. “Four nightmares for net neutrality”. Micro IEEE.Volume 26, Issue 6. Nov-Dec. 2006. pp.12-13.
<__http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=04042627__>
Neutrality.ca. 20 January 2009. 4 February 2009.
<__http://www.neutrality.ca__>
Nowak, Peter. “Net neutrality: FAQ”. CBC. 1 April 2008. 2 February 2009.
<http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/internet/netneutrality-faq.html>
Nowak, Peter. “NDP to introduce ‘net neutrality’ private member’s bill”. CBC. 27 May 2008. 2 February 2009.
<__http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/27/net-neutrality-ndp.html__>
Nowak, Peter. “Internet congestion a reality, Bell says”. CBC. 2 June 2008. 4 February 2009.
<__http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/30/tech-qandabibic.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.100333:b17310196>
Parliament of Canada. “C-552”. 2008. 4 February 2009.
<http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3524372&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24#1>
Save Our Net. 23 January 2009. 4 February 2009.
<http://www.saveournet.ca/>
Save The Internet. Free Press Action Fund. 2009. February 2009.
<http://www.savetheinternet.com/>
Image of Net Neutrality Supporter. Courtesy of: <http://blog.privcom.gc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/packats.jpg>. Consulted on February 4 2009.
Additional Media Content
The Machine Is Us/ing Us
By Dr.Michael Wesch